Vicarious Liability Under a Strict Liability Rule

In this article, we extend the model of Newman, H., and D. Wright. 1990. “Strict Liability in a Principal-Agent Model.” International Review of Law and Economics 10: 219–231 and strengthens their result that the strict liability can attain social optimum in a principal-agent relation to the situation in which the court appreciates any contractual terms regarding apportionment of damages between an employer and an employee under vicarious liability rule. Our model also generalizes and extends vicarious liability to the negligence-based liability rule.

The Limits of Liability: Anglo-American Organisations and Vicarious Liability from the 19th Century to the Present

This paper, ‘Limits of Liability’, shall focus on the recent history of the concept of vicarious liability in Anglo-American common law from the 19th century to the present.

Strict liability within the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011

<p>This paper examines strict liability within the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing Amendment Act 2011. Prior to the act, enforcing copyright infringement by file sharing was unrealistic due to detection, evidentiary and authorisation problems. The Act resolved these problems by imposing strict liability in the form of vicarious liability and evidentiary presumptions. First, it explores the decision to hold account holders vicariously liable for end user infringements in relation to policy considerations and fact patterns arising in Copyright Tribunal decisions. In doing so, it highlights ways in which injustice may be avoided. Second, it explores the evidentiary presumptions, the underlying policy rationale for their inclusion and the Copyright Tribunal’s application of them. Ultimately, it argues that there is good reason to remove the evidentiary presumptions.</p>

Strict liability within the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011

<p>This paper examines strict liability within the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing Amendment Act 2011. Prior to the act, enforcing copyright infringement by file sharing was unrealistic due to detection, evidentiary and authorisation problems. The Act resolved these problems by imposing strict liability in the form of vicarious liability and evidentiary presumptions. First, it explores the decision to hold account holders vicariously liable for end user infringements in relation to policy considerations and fact patterns arising in Copyright Tribunal decisions. In doing so, it highlights ways in which injustice may be avoided. Second, it explores the evidentiary presumptions, the underlying policy rationale for their inclusion and the Copyright Tribunal’s application of them. Ultimately, it argues that there is good reason to remove the evidentiary presumptions.</p>

Vindicatory Damages in the Child Welfare Tort Cases

<p>This thesis argues that vindicatory damages should be available in the child welfare tort cases against public authorities. These are cases in which the plaintiffs sue public authorities either for not protecting them from harm when they were children, or where it is alleged that the authority’s employees abused the children while in its care. Vindicatory damages would be intended to mark the wrong to the plaintiff, rather than attempting to compensate the consequences. This thesis argues in support of the availability of a separate head of vindicatory damages in tort law, including negligence, and explores some of the liability issues which arise in these cases, including vicarious liability, liability for omissions and liability in negligence for the way in which a statutory power is exercised or for a breach of a statutory duty. New Zealand's accident compensation scheme is also discussed: it is argued that vindicatory damages in tort law should not be barred by the scheme.</p>

Vindicatory Damages in the Child Welfare Tort Cases

<p>This thesis argues that vindicatory damages should be available in the child welfare tort cases against public authorities. These are cases in which the plaintiffs sue public authorities either for not protecting them from harm when they were children, or where it is alleged that the authority’s employees abused the children while in its care. Vindicatory damages would be intended to mark the wrong to the plaintiff, rather than attempting to compensate the consequences. This thesis argues in support of the availability of a separate head of vindicatory damages in tort law, including negligence, and explores some of the liability issues which arise in these cases, including vicarious liability, liability for omissions and liability in negligence for the way in which a statutory power is exercised or for a breach of a statutory duty. New Zealand's accident compensation scheme is also discussed: it is argued that vindicatory damages in tort law should not be barred by the scheme.</p>

Liability of Referees: An Analysis of Tort Liability for Wrong Referee Decisions

<p>In an increasing professional sports world, the referees in key tournaments and games have huge responsibility. Their decisions can impact not only on the game but on all the commercial interests involved in that game. This raises the issue of the liability of referees according to tort law. The main problems of liability of referees are the circumstances they work in. They have often only a split-second to make important decisions in the course of a game. The responsibility of a referee is so high that they can determine if a team wins or loses. These decisions can impact on the outcome of a game and consequently affect the financial situation of the clubs, sponsors and sportspeople. If a team is eliminated from a tournament they lose a huge amount of money. There are two legal aspects to consider. One is intention, where a referee might get involved in deliberate match-fixing, and another is negligence. Are match officials liable for their malpractice? Often a referee is not liable for lost chances because there is no causality that the team lost the game only because of a wrong referee decisions. For want of evidence the referee is in most cases not liable. However, is this right? The main thesis of this paper is that there is a liability of referees who act with intention. Referees who influence results negligently should be covered by immunity. However, sports governing body as guardians of the rules of the game should have some liability. They have a usual duty to ensure that a referee is able to manage the game and have it under control. Sports governing bodies may have vicarious liability for referee decisions as they use referees to fulfil their obligations of organising and running tournaments. The business approach of modern professional sport has added to the duties of sports governing bodies. Hence sports governing bodies have an added responsibility to ensure that all resources to support the referee and the rules - such as technical or assistant support - are utilized. These special duties need to be followed and can make sports governing bodies liable.</p>

Liability of Referees: An Analysis of Tort Liability for Wrong Referee Decisions

<p>In an increasing professional sports world, the referees in key tournaments and games have huge responsibility. Their decisions can impact not only on the game but on all the commercial interests involved in that game. This raises the issue of the liability of referees according to tort law. The main problems of liability of referees are the circumstances they work in. They have often only a split-second to make important decisions in the course of a game. The responsibility of a referee is so high that they can determine if a team wins or loses. These decisions can impact on the outcome of a game and consequently affect the financial situation of the clubs, sponsors and sportspeople. If a team is eliminated from a tournament they lose a huge amount of money. There are two legal aspects to consider. One is intention, where a referee might get involved in deliberate match-fixing, and another is negligence. Are match officials liable for their malpractice? Often a referee is not liable for lost chances because there is no causality that the team lost the game only because of a wrong referee decisions. For want of evidence the referee is in most cases not liable. However, is this right? The main thesis of this paper is that there is a liability of referees who act with intention. Referees who influence results negligently should be covered by immunity. However, sports governing body as guardians of the rules of the game should have some liability. They have a usual duty to ensure that a referee is able to manage the game and have it under control. Sports governing bodies may have vicarious liability for referee decisions as they use referees to fulfil their obligations of organising and running tournaments. The business approach of modern professional sport has added to the duties of sports governing bodies. Hence sports governing bodies have an added responsibility to ensure that all resources to support the referee and the rules - such as technical or assistant support - are utilized. These special duties need to be followed and can make sports governing bodies liable.</p>

MEMAHAMI KONSEP DAN SUBJEK PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA DALAM PASAL 39A UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 28 TAHUN 2007 TENTANG PERUBAHAN KETIGA UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 6 TAHUN 1983 TENTANG KUP

In various cases of tax criminal acts, the board of directors is often subject to criminal liability on the grounds of being a signatory to the Tax Return (and/or Tax Invoice) and as a corporate organ that is deemed responsible for all company policies, activities, and operations. In addition, some cases of Tax Criminal Investigation impose criminal responsibility on the board of directors based on evidence of signature in the Tax Return and consideration of the principle of vicarious liability, which is the expansion or representation of liability for compensation under Private Law. This study aims to analyze the criminal liability doctrine adopted by Article 39A of Law Number 28 of 2007 concerning the Third Amendment to Law Number 6 of 1983 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP) and whether corporations can be held criminally liable in the offense of that Article. The theory and concepts used are criminal liability and analysis of the elements of Article 39A of the UU KUP, the main doctrines of criminal liability, the definition of legal entities, corporate taxpayers, and corporate liability. The results of the study found that corporate taxpayers as corporations are the subject of criminal liability in Article 39A, in addition to individuals, and Article 39A adheres to the principle of no crime without guilt.